Helena Guergis

[Volunteerism, December 13th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about a brave little girl, Melissa Lilly, from my hometown of Angus in my riding of Simcoe—Grey. Tragically, this sweet nine year old has brain cancer, and my community has come together to help the family through this difficult time, particularly with the help of one of our town councillors, Sandie Macdonald.

The community raised over $25,000 in a walkathon that took place on November 16. The money will help Melissa's mother Carolyn stay in Toronto, where Melissa has up to seven months of treatment left.

I would like to commend the thoughtful efforts and hard work of the community and congratulate all those who have taken part in the fundraising, particularly the children from Angus Pine River Elementary School.

I am proud to represent the people of Angus, who have tried to give the Lilly family some normality through this difficult time.

I would like Melissa and her family to know that my thoughts and prayers and those of the entire community will be with them over Christmas and the coming months.

[Shipbuilding Industry, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his valuable contribution on this file, but the fact is that Canada can no longer afford to continue with the Liberal policy of complacency with respect to free trade agreements. Since NAFTA almost 13 years ago, we have seen only three agreements, while other countries, such as Australia and the United States are moving at a much faster pace.

With respect to the shipbuilding industry, the hon. member works very closely with it, as has our government. We will continue to work with the industry very closely, hear its concerns, ensure they are addressed and only proceed in an agreement that is to the best benefit for all Canadians.

[Softwood Lumber, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here in the House as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and tell members that a lot of hard work and negotiations went into the softwood lumber agreement. Not only am I proud that Bill C-24 passed, but I am also proud to be part of a government that does what it says it is going to do and works as a team.

On Wednesday I was disappointed to see all but two Liberal MPs stand in the House of Commons and vote against the softwood lumber agreement. This is shameful, given the support for the agreement by the provinces, including the province of Quebec, where the new Liberal leader is from, and the support from industry, labour and unions in Quebec.

How could the Liberals not support an agreement that is obviously in the best interests of Canada? This further demonstrates the Liberal tradition of playing political games. By not supporting the deal, the Liberals are putting their own partisan interests ahead of the needs of all Canadians.

[L'École Polytechnique, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the anniversary of the murders of 14 young women at l'École Polytechnique de Montréal.

Established in 1991 as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, today Canadians everywhere are called to remember those young women and we are also called to action. We know that far too many women and girls in Canada face violence each and every day of their lives and this is unacceptable.

Canada's new government has taken steps, such as strengthening our justice system and supporting initiatives like Sisters in Spirit which seeks to end violence against aboriginal women, but we know that combating violence must be a collective effort.

Today's commemoration serves as a time for all Canadians to reflect on the concrete actions we must take, individually and collectively, to prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls.

Let us work toward creating a Canada where our daughters, mothers and sisters can live free from fear of violence.

[Sir Frederick Banting, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to bring attention to an issue of great importance to the residents of Simcoe--Grey, the people of Canada and the world.

Alliston-born Sir Frederick Banting was a remarkable man who dedicated his life to medicine. His work saved millions of people's lives when his research led to the discovery of insulin. His hard work and devotion won the highest medical accolade.

However, today, the memory and legacy of Sir Frederick Banting is being threatened.

The Ontario Historical Society received the Banting homestead and its 100 acres in 1999 for $1, with the understanding it would maintain and preserve the property. However, it has betrayed this agreement. Not only has the homestead deteriorated, the Ontario Historical Society has decided to sell the land to developers, which will demolish the homestead and squash a diabetes camp.

My colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington, and I call on the Ontario Historical Society and Premier McGuinty to do the right thing, stop this sale and pass Jim Wilson's private member's bill to preserve the legacy of Sir Banting.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 29th, 2006]

You did nothing. You should apologize.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague talk about a deal that his party was not able to secure. When we became the new government and secured this deal, we found out that the Liberals were willing to sign on for only $3 billion to be returned to the Canadian industry. We arranged for over $5 billion being returned back.

The hon. member is bragging about something that he and his Liberal Party were unable to achieve. After 13 years, they were unable to do anything for the industry to the point where the industry is now in a desperate state. That is why we needed this deal. That is why we see so much support from the industry, from all the provinces and from the Bloc. I appreciate the comments of members of the Bloc when they talk about the inability of the previous Liberal government.

I also point out that we heard from a very important witness, Gordon Ritchie. He told us that in the very beginning when NAFTA was negotiated, softwood lumber was carved out in a memorandum of understanding because the Americans did not want it included. It would not work within a dispute mechanism system. There is a new dispute mechanism within this deal that will work. It is taking it out of U.S. trial law and bringing it into international trade law.

Would the hon. member perhaps comment as to what he thinks about this process which the industry very much supports?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that the Prime Minister made a promise and delivered on that promise. He delivered a deal to the softwood lumber industry that he promised during the campaign. This deal is for seven to nine years free of litigation and it returns over $5 billion American to the industry so that it can survive.

I notice that the member has acknowledged today that the previous Liberal government was unable or unwilling to solve this dispute and to give something back to the industry, but surely he is here voting in favour of and supporting the deal. Can he please tell us why he is supporting it? Surely it cannot be as bad as he has suggested. He knows there are some good things in it. He knows that Quebec is supporting it. He knows that the industry in Quebec is supporting it. Perhaps he could enlighten us as to why he has decided to support the deal.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has not been on the committee so he would not know that we did in fact sit throughout the summer and had an opportunity to hear from many witnesses. He obviously was not there. Deliberately? No, because he was not sitting on the committee. However, now he knows witnesses had ample opportunity to come before the committee. Hopefully, he will remember that in the future.

Why does the hon. member and his colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, continue to stand onside with the lobbyist lawyers, who they have dragged before committee over and over again? They are the only ones who have won with litigation and they are only ones who will win if this deal does not succeed.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member because I am concerned that he continues to ignore the facts.

First, we know that the softwood lumber dispute has gone through 24 years of litigation and the last lawsuit for five years alone. Without this deal, the U.S. lumber coalition has told us very clearly, not only through the public and news releases but very verbally, that there will be another lawsuit without this deal. Why does the hon. member continue to ignore that with a new lawsuit there will be new countervailing duties and new anti-dumping duties, which could total 27%?

I also want to point out that the trade committee was one of only two committees that sat throughout the summer. We heard from witnesses, not once, not twice, but many of them had three opportunities to come before us. Why is the member deliberately misleading the House when it comes to the number of times the committee has heard from witnesses?

I also want to talk about the fact that the deal will provide stability and predictability for 7 to 9 years, that 90% of the--